SWLE :: View topic

Darrel · Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:13 pm

Hm, I think that now the site is PERFECT, it is fast, and has some new changes which make it more useful (like the removing of the timer of the minicity.in links). But reducing the Dynasty member limit will be bad for many people (me , too, cause I'm just a peasant in the Dunasty).

Roman · Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:16 pm

DemonicJ · Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:18 pm

Roman · Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:22 pm

DemonicJ · Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:27 pm

Mate who knows, I dont have control over who stays allied with me anymore by the looks of it

oshkoshbosh · Gamer Joined: 09 May 2008 Posts: 17

Just for the record - my vote is: 100 limit per dynasty, and 400 limit for an alliance, 1 admin. per dynasty...

jamiroquai_chic · Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:51 pm **Idiotic proposal**

Why on earth is this being proposed???

I think I speak for many people when I say this is ridiculous! EVERYONE in MMC has tried so hard to raise our little family, call that sad or pathetic but as a group we all try so hard with what time we have.

I am sure its the same with other Dynasty groups.

So how can you ask us to reduce our numbers?? To be perfectly honest I don't see where there is a problem at the minute with how things are.

If new dynasty groups cannot get the numbers for their own groups it is their problem, why make them in the first place when you can join a stronger group?? That group are guarenteed to help you!

If people decide that they wanna make a dynasty.... make one. But why disrupt what we already have for the sake of a number of new groups that we don't know are serious or going to last.

If you wanna take a look into something and change something why don't you make a new dynasty.... Make one for all the people who join a dynasty who hide their bloody links because they are the ones who are a pain in the arse, and do not let them have allies, or even better still, DON'T LET THEM IN ONE, BAN THEM. If these people were banned and stuck to the normal Link Exchange you wouldn't be stressing about reducing the numbers to 60 a group because they wouldn't be messing ours up!!!

Sorry for stressing but I just think this is a stupid decision. Feel free to shout at me if you think I am out of order, I don't care. Least I've said my piece and given you my point of view.

Lucy.

DemonicJ · Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:56 pm

Unfortunately you dont speak for all people. The only ones "whinging" are members of the biggest dynasties apparently.

ppj2005 · Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:01 pm

And because we are from the big dynasties, our opinions don't count.

jamiroquai_chic · Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:07 pm

Not fair though is it

Yarold · Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:11 pm

A break to think about it, as last pages dont have anything adding to case (with 1 exception).

DemonicJ · Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:12 pm

Yarold · Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:10 pm

I finally decided to change limits to:

Code:

Members limit in dynasty: 100

Code:

Members limit in ally: 350

Instead of random breaking one, only proper info will be showed when accepting new members to dynasty.

Minor changes to dynasty allys page:
- can send only 1 request at time
- proper warrning is showed when trying to send request to dynasty that cant accept it, so you have chance to know if its possible.

Open to suggestions again.

sebastopol-ca · Gamer Legend Joined: 05 Jun 2008 Posts: 125

I just love reading some"healthy, loving discussion" and glad that I can voice my "minority" opinion openly without fear of being flamed.

I like all the changes that have been going on here lately, and send my thanks to the Site Admins for their hard work. Not an easy task to keep 100% of the membership happy 100% of the time, but you seem to be getting closer to it . And the fact that your open to change, which everyone hates, is also a plus for you all.

I look forwards to seeing how this new change helps out the small guys. Thanks again Admins.

activist · Gamer Deity Joined: 13 Apr 2008 Posts: 61

YAROLD i wish you would add something to the case as not ONE person agrees with your original argument for change. Put that in your pot and stew it.

turdkey · Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:20 pm

Is it possible to only allow top 5/6 teams to ally with only 2/3 of their number? That could spark the change in dynamics you wanted to achieve Yarold, possibly.

If not have you removed the 5 team ally rule which would benefit all the smaller teams?

Whatever you finally decide it's fine with me as I don't pay for this site and sometimes tough decisions have to be made. :grin:

red oak · Gamer Deity **Helped:** 1 Joined: 07 Apr 2008 Posts: 85

It seems that numbers are thrown around, changed at whim and after reading the entire thread twice I am not able to find one single reason WHY are those numbers tossed around at all? What was wrong with the existing system? What exactly you are trying to 'fix'? Why is 400 better than 350?

There are contradictory arguments on both sides, as to what would be 'better'... better for what, better for whom? For dynasties, clickers, games we play, Yarold, egos,.. ? I don't think that there is a clear understanding what the heck we are talking about...

You're asking for suggestions? Suggestions for what? You need to provide a simple reasons for needed changes, some ideas what you're trying to achieve, than you might get some meaningful suggestions... and not pages and pages of emotional drivel

red